Why can't they admit this is nothing but a way to increase the admissions pool, hence increasing revenue, while meanwhile obfuscating the stats on what is transpiring?

For Harvard it might actually some misguided sjw way to hide mismatch. For the lower ranked schools that will use Harvard's example as justification, it's talking as many low performers as possible without taking the ratings hit.

Harvard doesn't need the $$ so their motives may actually be legit. But they could set a precedent. If the ABA doesn't stop them from doing this then it would be harder for the ABA to put up roadblocks if other, lesser schools start following suit. Those other schools will use it for $$ and to admit students who, if they had taken the LSAT, might have dragged down the school's rankings.

I don't think Harvard will be admitting people who, IF they had taken the LSAT, would have done anything less than stellar. This is about getting people who are considering lots of graduate programs (all presumably elite ones in this case) to consider law school as well by removing one barrier to doing so.

I'm sure the people they admit based on GRE score will still have scored in the 99th percentile of that test, and probably could have cracked 170 on the LSAT as well, had they been inclined to take it.

Now again, if lesser schools start to follow suit, that will indeed be a very different story. But I have no doubt that HLS admits will still be outstanding test takers, regardless of which specific test they take.

The reasoning could be to capture high-performing students before they enter into another graduate program. The problem with the LSAT is that you need to prepare for the exam. Very few people are doing Logic Games in their spare time. Whereas, the GREs prep time can be minimal and you can still perform extremely well. So you may have an engineer planning on an engineering grad program who always entertained the idea of becoming an attorney. This way they can take one test and if they score high enough, can just throw their hat in the wrong as a "what if?" and see what happens. Many graduate programs are much harder to get into than law school. There are some extremely capable and qualified people applying to Ph.D. programs that get no offered.

I would interview prospective students who wanted to be brought on as a Ph.D. candidate under my boss in the clinical psychology program. After the initial culling, the lab would interview 12 people out of 200+ applications for the one spot. The people walking through the door were Ivy league graduates with years of research experience and many already published. We would only select 1 out of that 12. I have no pretensions about where psychology falls on the prestige hierarchy, but many of those people were stuck twiddling their thumbs for a whole year while they applied to different labs. So So why not float law school out in front of them when they don't get picked up by a Ph.D. program?

I do agree that the other schools are likely trying to both increase the pool of students and to obscure the types of students they are admitting to their school.

Yes, I think this is it. To attract people who aren't seriously considering law school (thus don't take the LSAT) but might impulsively apply if they have a good GRE score. Far more people take the GRE, like 5-10x as many as take the LSAT, so it broadens the potential applicant pool tremendously.

I guess that I have a different interpretation of "legitimate" reasons. Trying to pick off grad school rejects - even the smart ones at top schools - seems like further perpetuation of the glut problem by greedy schools preying on students who feel rejected and uncertain about other plans not working. How could that possibly be a legit reason?

I guess I, for one, just can't see HYS type schools as contributing to the glut. There is plenty of demand for their grads, in jobs that justify the tuition. Their situation isn't the same ballpark, or really even the same sport, as the lesser schools.